Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from
Epicurus to Bentham, who maintained the theory of utility, meant by it, not
something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together
with exemption from pain; and instead of opposing the useful to the agreeable or
the ornamental, have always declared that the useful means these, among other
things. Yet the common herd, including the herd of writers, not only in
newspapers and periodicals, but in books of weight and pretension, are
perpetually falling into this shallow mistake. Having caught up the word
utilitarian, while knowing nothing whatever about it but its sound, they
habitually express by it the rejection, or the neglect, of pleasure in some of
its forms; of beauty, of ornament, or of amusement. Nor is the term thus
ignorantly misapplied solely in disparagement, but occasionally in compliment;
as though it implied superiority to frivolity and the mere pleasures of the
moment. And this perverted use is the only one in which the word is popularly
known, and the one from which the new generation are acquiring their sole notion
of its meaning. Those who introduced the word, but who had for many years
discontinued it as a distinctive appellation, may well feel themselves called
upon to resume it, if by doing so they can hope to contribute anything towards
rescuing it from this utter degradation.